User talk:Kodia/Archive 4
LeAnn Condren As you will have noticed, we have a message from a Wikia staff member on Talk:LeAnn Condren, saying that someone who says that they are LeAnn has sent Wikia an e-mail wanting all mention of herself removed from the wiki. We need to decide our policy on this. The problem isn't removing LeAnn's own page, or the category for her Works. If she doesn't want an Author page, she presumably has a right not to have one—or her name on the title of any other page. The problem is (a) here; (b) on the story page; and © not getting repeats. Mentions in FK wiki history Hey, I just mentioned LeAnn on your User page in order to discuss the problem. That's a mention of her. In order to delete all mention of her on the wiki, we also will have to delete our discussion of her request. Personally, I have reservations about flat-out deleting our record of decisions and reasons for them. The Story's Wiki Article The story LeAnn wrote is "Sticks and Stones". Since the story exists, it deserves a page—at least as long as it's archived somewhere (which it still is, since its link works). In my opinion, that would be true even if LeAnn were the only author: I feel that the story, once published, has its own rights! However, in this case the situation is more complicated. The story was co-written with Tyra Mitchell. And she hasn't asked to have either her name or her story removed. Surely, she has a right to have her story on the wiki? Does one author have the right to keep the other author out of the wiki? I don't think so. Suppose we do decide to keep the page for "Sticks and Stones". Does that mean mentioning both authors' names on the story's article page. Certainly, we can't give Tyra sole credit: it simply wouldn't be accurate. Perhaps we could get around this by putting in "Second author (name withheld by request)", or some such. Similarly, for a story written by a single author who doesn't want to be mentioned, we can say that the author's name is withheld by request. The joke, of course, is that people would still be able to find out who wrote it by clicking on the link. But we'd be abiding by the author's request, since the archive is not a part of our wiki. Someone starting another LeAnn article Unless we mention somewhere on the wiki that LeAnn isn't to have a page, someone else—a new user, maybe—may make her a page some time in the future. So we need a policy. Then, if we have to delete someone's article on LeAnn, we can at least say that it has been done in accordance with that policy. A standing policy, that is: not something that looks as though it has been cobbled up on the spot, in an arbitrary sort of way, just to frustrate the newbie. Maybe we need a special page of people who aren't to have pages on the wiki. Of course, that brings us back to (a): that page, since it would have LeAnn's name on it, would in itself be a mention of her on the wiki. But somewhere we need a list—or we ourselves might fail to keep track of who's in and who's (supposed to be) out. There's some sort of horns-of-the-dilemma paradox going on here. -- Greer Watson 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Response from Kodia My short response to your long summary: let's use a similar tactic to movies where, say, a director refuses to put his name on it. We can specifically call out this "Alan Smithee" naming scheme by making a page that describes it similarly, describes the controversy, and still allows us to keep the article about the story when it has a co-author. It's also much shorter than "Second author (name withheld by request)".--Kodia 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :Which will work, up to the point where the real Alan Smithee decides to write a story. And finds his name is already taken. :No, I get what you mean. Something along the lines of "A.N. Other", which is fairly well known outside the movie world. Not to be confused with Anonymous—another well known author we've both encountered. :We need a term that clearly distinguishes between "Anonymous" (who never put his/her/its name on the story, even in the archive) and "Name Withheld" (whose name is in the archive, just not in the wiki). :Hey, how about "Name Withheld"? It's kind of self-explanatory up to a point; and, for anyone who wants more info, it could be linked to the page discussing the policy. -- Greer Watson 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) ::Alright. I'll write up a policy page regarding this and we can go from there.--Kodia 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :::I think we should keep the article about the story even when the only author is Name Withheld. We are, after all, hoping eventually to list all FK fan fiction on all archives. That way, a potential reader can find out about the story, and go to the archive for it. :::We would not, of course, give any name for the author besides "Name Withheld". -- Greer Watson 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The basic privacy policy is now posted. I have some errands to run and a class to attend before I can continue with any additional adjunct pages regarding this.--Kodia 00:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :Looks good. -- Greer Watson 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :::Good. And I like the reordering of what you changed to tighten things up. I think we're good to go. Do you think we're done enough that I can take the name references on this talk page out and replace them with Name Withheld?--Kodia 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Mention of NAME WITHHELD on Another Page Close Encounter of the Absurd Kind mentions in the notes that the story was written as a surprise gift to NAME WITHHELD. Being that the request was "wanting all mention of herself removed from the wiki", may I safely put in a link to Name Withheld? Please advise. Thanks!Susanmgarrett 04:47, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :Seems reasonable to me, assuming that "Lea" and The Unmentionable are, in fact, the same person, given the difference in spelling on the first name. (Do you know the individual in question?) -- Greer Watson 08:07, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Don't know the individual. I think it's an err on the side of caution thing. Change has been made. Thanks for the assist. Susanmgarrett 18:01, January 26, 2010 (UTC) I think that's fine. Thankyou for working on this. Though I'm still a trifle confused as to why it's so important to remove links off my talk page....--Kodia 11:19, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :Believe it or not, links on some of the talk pages are showing up as missing pages on the missing pages list. The code seems to prevent that. Anyone trying to be helpful by filling in a missing page that really shouldn't be filled in . . . well, you know the drill. Susanmgarrett 18:01, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :OH! I completely forgot about that page. Right then. Thanks for the reminder.--Kodia 22:49, January 26, 2010 (UTC) Privacy policy Hi, I just wanted to say that I'm impressed by your privacy policy. I think that taking this courteous stance on removing names is really going to reduce disputes and help the reputation of the wiki. It's lovely to see the care and thought you have put into this - as well as the rest of the wiki of course! Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :It's our pleasure. If you have other wikis struggling with this issue, please feel free to send them here to us to look at our way of dealing with this. They can feel free to email me privately if they wish more thorough discussion.--Kodia 12:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC) How should we categorize articles about non-author fans? I've wondered about this once or twice, but until now it's not come up in practice. However, the Jean Prior article (currently uncategorized) makes the issue more than moot. We have Category:Authors; and, of course, most of the fans who are relevant to this wiki—in terms of having their own page—are those who write fan fiction. But, even among those who write, there are those (such as yourself) whose significance to FK fandom lies in other areas as well. And there are fans who don't write, but still have done things that merit their having a page. I suppose we could have Category:Fans, making things such as Authors, Website Owners, and Listparents into subcategories. We will need, in that case, to decide what subcategories we need. At the moment Category:Authors is the only one we have. However, if we have Category:Fans, that raises the possibility of people creating their own pages simply because they are fans. People who haven't done anything specific, I mean, except watch the show, and maybe join a list or Yahoo group. To me this is not exactly desirable; but I don't know how you feel about all fans having the right to have a bio page on the wiki (other than their User page, that is). Nevertheless, if we have several categories for "significant" fans based on the variety of roles they play, then we certainly will need a supraordinate category—itself placed under Category:People—to group all the fannish bio pages together. Ideas? -- Greer Watson 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :Wow, these are all good thoughts, Greer. I had a rough night's sleep and I just hear the coffee pot finishing its brewing. I'd like to think about this for a little while and see what my gut starts to tell me. My initial reaction is that we might need a policy on notability but I'm going to let this percolate a little bit first and put down my thoughts after. With hope, that will be in a few hours, but I have a deadline for the magazine I'm writing for, so it may not happen until tomorrow.--Kodia 12:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, a little late on this but my thoughts. First, there's clearly nothing preventing us from giving multiple categories to the same page. If a person is an author and that's clearly what they're known for, we can still use that infobox for them or we could try and make it more general. I still need to consider the implications of it, to be honest. I don't want to see a HUGE number of infoboxes get created for all flavors of people types, but neither do I want to cram a square peg into a round hole. We still need more discussion on notability too. As for the idea of a Fans category, I have to say I don't like it. "Movers and Shakers" while somewhat crude would even be preferable in my mind because there would be no confusion about the fact that notability was clearly required. If we really need "Fans" in the title, "Notable Fans" would be better. Distasteful, but better.--Kodia 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :I agree with you about "Notable Fans": that particular phrase does have a clanging sort of ring to it. On the other hand, if we don't put "Fans" in the title (whatever exact title), it might be a bit ambiguous. After all, one could reasonably argue that, from an FK perspective, James Parriott is a mover and shaker. :However, right now, I'm less concerned about the infoboxes (at least for the time being) than I am with finding a decent set of names to categorize the various types of Notable Fans. What term would you use for Jean Prior? Yourself? :And who else do you feel qualifies as—''(ouch!)—"notable"? -- 05:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Well, notability can be negotiated, to be truthful and I think we may have to be somewhat satisfied with that. I opened a forum topic a while back on this but forgot to put the forum head in to make it appear in the list of forum topics. I've correcting this now so that it appears. Perhaps we could wrangle on the topic there?--Kodia 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Just realized I didn't answer the one question you probably wanted answered most. What would I call me and Jean? Other than addicted? Notable Fan. As much as I hate to say it, that one really covers the majority of what we're looking for. Once we wrangle the concept of notability, then I think we'll be okay with that category.--Kodia 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Makers of fan videos I notice that we have a few pages for fan videos. Clearly we need a category to hold pages for their makers—something other than "Author", since that word implies a literary endeavour (to me, at least). What is the term for a maker of fan videos? -- Greer Watson 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :Director or Videographer would be appropriate, though the former is more accurate and the later usually a subordinate staff position on a video project. "Video Author" may well serve us just fine as it clearly states the medium and when people read "Author" they assume the written word, even if published electronically.--Kodia 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Bright Knight redirect page I seem to have boo-booed. Realizing that "Bright Knight" is actually the name of Amy's own website, and that her LJ blog is named What's New on "Bright Knight", I corrected the name of the wiki page. So far so good. However, I now need to make a page for Bright Knight itself. And here I run into a problem: the Wikia software has made an automatic redirect page; and, whatever I do, I find myself on the page for Amy's blog. I can't seem to break the loop and turn Bright Knight from a redirect into a page about her website. -- Greer Watson 17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :This is one of the weird ones that requires pictures. When you click on the old Bright Knight page you should have seen this: :: :Clicking on the purple "Bright Knight" text in that circled text would take you to this page: :: :And clicking on the "Edit this page" link would make this appear: :: :I removed the redirect and placed dummy text on Bright Knight for you to get you started. Hope this helps.--Kodia 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::"Amy's page that Greer will edit." (snicker) -- Greer Watson 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::Amy's page that Greer now ''has edited. -- Greer Watson 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Gertherings We don't have a page specifically for Gertherings. However, there exist webpages about them (for photos, I think): * Gerthering 3 Photos * Weekend with Ger 4 * Weekend with Ger 5 Where should they go (page/category)? -- Greer Watson 04:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC) :Conventions seems like the closest fit, I think, from what I remember of the descriptions. Unless you can think of a better spot.--Kodia 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) ::Looking a bit more closely, I get the impression that "Gertherings" are the same thing as "Weekends with Ger", for which we have a page already. So I've put the links there. Also made a redirect page. -- Greer Watson 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::Okay, thankyou for looking into this.--Kodia 12:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Vocabulary If you check the changes while you were away, you'll see that on 28 July, User 65.48.175.100 made a couple of changes—specifically to the Nick Knight and Javier Vachon pages. These relate to vocabulary. In both instances the comment was that the vocabulary item being changed "is not a word". At this point, I have not reverted either of them. Both are words, of course: they are simply words that are unfamiliar to User 65.48.175.100. But I don't want to just revert the change, saying, "They are too words!!" That smacks a bit too much of the schoolyard. The fact that I have a larger vocabulary than someone else is not the point: one has to consider the comprehensibility of the wiki. One of the words changed is "adhorted", the other is "revulsed". I am not desperately surprised that someone else might be unfamiliar with the former; the latter strikes me as being a bit more frequent. Clearly the meaning of both was clear from the context, since User 65.48.175.100 provided quite reasonable substitutes: respectively, "insisted" and "repulsed". There are nuanced differences, of course; but the basic sense of the sentences remains unaltered. I leave the fate of these particular revisions up to you. However, this sort of question is bound to arise in the future. -- Greer Watson 08:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) :I can see what you mean about the vocabulary being problematic. I understand how frustrating it might be to see an edit comment like this when you and I know perfectly well that the words are true. (Our vocabularies likely are larger than the average reader if only because of our level of education in our respective university systems.) But to be honest, I can only assume good faith. The changes don't make unreasonable alterations to the articles and while they are indeed nuanced, you and I both agree that the same sense is maintained. :Now, as for the question of these kinds of revisions coming up in the future, I think they're very much in line with how all wikis work. Are there specific concerns that trouble you in this regard? Are you worried about edit warring with changes going back and forth or some such? Perhaps we can discuss your specific concerns and see what might need to be done about it. If it's just concerns about nuance, I think we'll both have to shake our heads and sigh, and hope that people at least learn from our writing before they simplify terms.--Kodia 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ::In this particular instance, I'm not especially concerned. The essential meaning is preserved, which is obviously the important point. ::The joke, as I see it, is that it would actually be more important to make the change if the reader had not understood what the word meant, and substituted something that altered the meaning. That would mean that I had employed a word so unusual that it could not be interpreted from context—which would clearly be an error in judgment. My judgment. ::Here, though, the meaning of my sentence was clear. Which means that the change was actually unnecessary. (Sigh.) ::Yes, wikis get changed. That's the nature of wikis. I know that. I just have this (purely schoolyard) wish to say, "It is too a word", at which point we have edit-warring, which is bad wikiquette. Of course, no one is really going to go through the history and see me being falsely accused of making up words; it just gripes me. (Would you, too, I suspect.) -- Greer Watson 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Website infobox Do we have a website infobox? As you've probably read on FORKNI-L, I've been saving Forever Knight sites that will disappear with GeoCities. (The sites are going on Stephanie Kellerman's website, along with my own.) In the course of this project, I have been using the Wayback Machine to look at defunct sites that have been archived. As a secondary consequence, I can probably do wiki pages on a few of them. See ForeverNat.com. Some common information that might be infoboxed: dates (if known), owner, faction, type of site. Room for a picture, or even a couple of pictures top and bottom. Current address, or archive. Your two cents' worth? -- Greer Watson 10:31, September 7, 2009 (UTC) :I think that sounds like a fine idea, though the notability concept is still in force. I think it might be a little harder to judge notability of the site, but the idea of a hundred little pages with only one sentence of information gives me the hives, you know? Would you like me to draft up an infobox and have you comment on it or updated it as you see fit?--Kodia 12:29, September 7, 2009 (UTC) ::As far as the one-sentence sites are concerned, the Defunct fan websites page doesn't just define the term: it also has a list. Quite a number of the sites on that list have a one sentence description already appended. As long as that's all we have on them, I don't think they merit a page of their own. They may well merit one if/when we know more about them. At the moment, though, I'd say the list is the place for the one-sentence descriptions. ::Judging by what seems to be available through the Wayback Machine, it's clear that there were at one time a fair number of small sites that people began with good intentions but never went back to. Probably these aren't exactly a high priority for getting their own page! ::On the other hand, even the smallest site can merit a page if it describes things sufficiently fully. And, of course, some of the sites that do not at this time have pages are nevertheless large sites that have simply run foul of (a) ISPs no longer offering webspace, or (b) paid sites vanishing when their owners drift off to a new fandom (or out of fandom altogether) and no longer shell out the money to maintain them. ::I wouldn't mind having a look at what infobox you devise. I'm still shaky on the wiki markup, at least at the more advanced levels. -- Greer Watson 22:30, September 7, 2009 (UTC) Corrections needed Goof time. Can you correct the title of Category:DracqPack? Should be no Q there. -- Greer Watson 08:35, September 17, 2009 (UTC) :Done!--Kodia 10:15, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Thanks. As you will no doubt have noticed, I have been adding more factions. Some of them are fairly frequently referred to in lists, but not based on characters (e.g. the cross-stitchers, the Rainbow Knights). Others are proposed names that never took, esp. for the third-season characters. And then there's that list of "factions" for April French's fan fiction. (I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to take that seriously.) Probably, at some time, it would be worth while sorting out the factions into additional subcategories. At the moment, I've done it by premise (which is usually fairly straightforward). Other possible subcategories include: * Original. The basic six from way back. * Fractions. The Dark This and Light That. Spin-offs. Where the GSS and NA go, that I'm not sure. * Major. The ones that actually fought in Wars? Had websites, chat groups? (Take this to FORKNI-L maybe, and poll people to make up a list.) * Proposed. The names that didn't make it. We probably ought also to consider pulling the text out to be the "main page" for the bigger factions. You, after all, are the one who feels that categories should have only a small definition at the top, and the rest of the text should go onto wiki pages. As I work, I occasionally come upon more material than is reasonable for any category page. (Look at the General's Secret Service for an example.) Right now, even for obviously major categories, we often have little put down. But that ought to change eventually. The main page would then be topped with a link over to the category, which would be the list of faction members. At least, I take that to be the original concept. For now, I'm done. -- Greer Watson 11:27, September 17, 2009 (UTC) :Excellent. Great work. And yes I agree about the main faction page.--Kodia 00:10, September 18, 2009 (UTC) ::I'll start working my way through them, then, making main pages. -- Greer Watson 08:13, September 18, 2009 (UTC) Redirect pages - more problems So I now know what to do when I want to convert a redirect page into the main page for a category. This is fine for the factions that I did earlier. (And I'm in process of dealing with them.) However, I've run into a problem with the factions I just added. When I did them, I followed the original pattern, i.e. I did them as categories. Now, of course, I need to convert them, so that there's a main page (with description) and a category page (where people can state their membership, resulting in a list of members). Take "Women Scorned", who apparently are fans of Alexandra. I made Category:Women Scorned. According to your original instructions, what I should now do is Search for Women Scorned. Then, if no redirect page was made, I'd get a red link, through which I could start the page. If a redirect page had been made, I'd get sent to the Category; but underneath the name would be the redirect in little letters. By clicking on them, I'd go to the redirect page, which I could then edit. Except that that's not happening. I made no redirect pages for the new factions. Yet I'm getting taken to the Category anyway. And there are no little letters to click on! So how do I do my edit? Clearly someone at Wiki Central has been modifying the software. Please find out what I do now. (Meanwhile, I'll do the conversion for the factions I did originally.) -- Greer Watson 18:01, September 21, 2009 (UTC) :Okay, I just solved this problem. "Search" may not do it. But if I make a text link, then it shows up red. And, if I click on it, I get an edit box where I can make the new page. :I am going to make a list here, so I can use it to start the pages. Academy, Andreivichs, Apaches, Archivist's Assistants, B.R.I.C.K., Bears, Black Jewels, Boutonnieres, Boys/Boyettes, Brick-throwers, Buttons, CERK Perks, CaddyWhackers, Celtic GlowWorms, Cohen-heads, Compadres, Convent of the Decadent Sin Sisters, Cousins, Cousins of the Knight, Cross-stitchers of the Knight, Dark Hearts, Dark Knighties, Dark NatPack, Dark Nick and NatPack, Dark Perkulators, Dark Trinity, Deniers, Die-Hards, Diviants, DracPack, Enforcements, FK Pagans, Faithfuls, Fallers, Figurines, Fleur-Boosters, Fleurettes, FoDs, FoSiLs, Fraction Faction, Friends of Gillian, General's Secret Service, Goldilocks, Graces, Gullibles, Heartbreakers, Hidden Yankees, INCArnates, Immortal Beloveds, JuJuBees, Knighties, Knights de Soir, Knights in Darkness, Knights of Ravenblack City, Knights of the Cross, LaCroissants, Les Chevaliers De La Nuit, Les Enfants De Chevalier, Les Miserables, Light Cousins, Light Knighties, Lonely Hearts, MacGregors, Masters of Ceremony, Mercenaries, Mikies, Miris, Mortal Siblings, Myras, Nanettes, NatPackers, NatVampCamp, Nevermores, Nick and NatPackers, Nick's Harem, Night Shift, Nunkies Anonymous, Nunkies Scouts, Perkulators, Perry-A, Perryhounds, Phantoms, Philosophers, Punks & Monks, Quoth The Ravens, Rainbow Knights, Rakes, Rat Patrol, Rat-Pack, Raven's Cellar, Ravenettes, Reese's Pieces, Roman Goddesses, Russell Squares, Saintsinners, Scorpions, Seducers, Shoshannas, Skeletonites, Spinal Taps, St. Kaillous, Stonetree-ites, T & V Pack, TKOs, Tequila Fiends, TreyDays, Twilight Knighties, UnSuiteds, Unholy Trinity, Unmentionables, Unnamed Faction, Urchins, Vachonettas, Valentines, Vaqueros, Vetterans, Women Scorned, Woof Pack, One way or another, I'm going to get this done! -- Greer Watson 18:29, September 21, 2009 (UTC) :Well, you've identified part of the problem. What the system is doing is finding the category because that's the only match it has. When there's exactly one match, it ignores the word category and matches to anything after the colon. Crappy for us developing, but great for casual users. Personally, I think that it should take you to the search results page regardless, not the actual item. So...what can I do to help at this point?--Kodia 20:40, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::One thing that has become noticeable as I work through these faction pages is that, on the category page, the info on how to declare yourself a faction member isn't sufficiently well defined as separate from the quickie description at the top. It needs to be set off in some way. A table, a box, a coloured square? Something. Maybe indented on both sides, surrounded by a line on all round, with a very pale coloured background. If you could work on that...? -- Greer Watson 22:20, September 21, 2009 (UTC) :::Well, that does that—at least until I find out about yet more faction names. -- Greer Watson 08:13, September 22, 2009 (UTC) ::::And I've prettied up most of the pages with a picture—when I could think of one that would apply. Without actually making one, I can hardly do a picture for a faction like the Vachonettas. Not that I've ever heard of them before! I get the impression at times that someone did a table, crossing characters with characters (or slashing them!) to get as many possible relationships as they could come up with, and then invented names for all the pairings. ::::The real joke is that there are actually things that could have been factions but never got names. How about the "Brabantines" for people interested in Nick's relationship with his mortal family? There have certainly been stories about that! How about names for factions about other guest characters, such as Larry Merlin or Feliks Twist, Briana or Alma, all of whom have appeared in a fair number of stories also. Not major factions, obviously. But then, how many of the ones listed are major, by any reasonable count? ::::And who in their right minds came up with a horrible faction name like Stonetree-ites? No wonder no one seems ever to have wanted to belong to it! He's always been more popular than Cohen; but faction lists regularly include the Cohen-heads, even if only to be completist. Stonetree-ites are often omitted. Now, if they'd called themselves "Stoners" or "Tree-huggers" maybe.... -- Greer Watson 05:51, September 23, 2009 (UTC) Changing/deleting categorization I've started having trouble altering the categorizations of pages. Specifically, I've been working on the website pages, and want several whose names start with "The" to be sorted alphabetically. Which they aren't now (mea culpa). The ones affected are The Academy, The Cousins of the Knight, and The Good, the Bad and the Perky. Up till now, when I was editing a page, all I had to do was delete the old category (at the bottom of the edit box) and then make a new one with the sort key. Now, I don't seem to be able to do that. -- Greer Watson 22:43, October 2, 2009 (UTC) :I think there's an update bug that's going on. I'll definitely look into this. If you can stomach the wait while I contact someone in the know. I'll post here once I figure out if the problem is related to that sneaky update. Thanks for letting me know and sorry I've not been on much. New job contract has me busy busy.--Kodia 00:05, October 3, 2009 (UTC) ::It seems to be working again. -- Greer Watson 00:45, October 5, 2009 (UTC) Can you remove link from deleted page? I'm trying to clean up the wanted pages section. Hi from chic member is active as a link. The actual page content has been removed, but the link still appears in the deletion message and on the talk page. Can you remove that link? Thanks! Susanmgarrett 01:11, January 26, 2010 (UTC) : And . . . fixed it myself. Thanks. Susanmgarrett 01:17, January 26, 2010 (UTC) Pen and real names It turns out that Pam Williamson and Jaxie are one and the same. We have one story written under the former name, another under the latter—but including her real name as well, i.e. "Pam (Jaxie) Williamson". How do you feel this should be sorted? (Clearly sorting is needed.) -- Greer Watson 08:04, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :Hmm. I think my inclination is to go with the name given name and surname combination rather than the nickname, but that's personal preference. I'd put in a redirect from the nickname to the other, actually.--Kodia 11:21, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Done. -- Greer Watson 11:43, January 26, 2010 (UTC) How many Abbys does it take...? We need to get our Abbys sorted out. How many are there? There's Abby82, who does videos—but also writes stories under the name Abby (as her website makes clear). But, from Amy R.'s Bright Knightie recommendations, I gather there is/was another writer (Abby A.). Who is now deceased, and so would seem to be someone else. You've been around longer than I have: can you sort these out? Are we, as I suspect, dealing with two different people? -- Greer Watson 00:31, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :A not unrelated problem: are Kyer and Kyer en Ysh the same person? -- Greer Watson 00:35, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Oi. That's a pickle, isn't it? Hmm. Honestly I have no idea how to sort them out other than to ask on the list to be honest. As for the Kyer, I believe they are the same person. Would you like to ask or would you like me to ask? --Kodia 00:46, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Would you? Thanks. -- Greer Watson 07:48, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I sure hope I'm doing this whole talk thing right. I saw the subject line in the activity feed when I logged in to make an edit, so I thought I'd chime in. You are indeed referring to two different "Abbys". However, because Abby is not my real name, I feel like I don't have a legitimate claim over the use of the name 'Abby". Especially over someone who was named Abby and who produced fanworks before I did. To avoid confusion, it would probably be best that I and my fanworks be referenced under 'Abby82'. As Greer pointed out, I vid under the name Abby82 but write fic under Abby. That was an overlooked inconsistency on my part. Sorry for the confusion. Also, it should be noted that Abby A. was quite the vidder (but not FK) and fic writer, but I'm sure others would be more helpful there. --Abby82 05:36, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::Abby, thankyou for chiming in. We really appreciate it. I haven't yet sent the note to the lists asking for clarifications (I'm just now coming back from a major hard drive failure). Any help you could give us here to identify the stories that you wrote specifically would be great and if you need any help with wiki work, you have but to ask.--Kodia 11:43, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::Have you written to the list yet? I've combined Abby82's material. However, we still need info on Kyer/Kyer en Ysh and on Abby A. -- Greer Watson 21:32, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Well, I was going to write to the list today now that work calmed down, but I see that you posted to the list already, so...Good on ya, mate!--Kodia 19:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC) Notable fans again Some while back, Susan added a page for Frank Liltz. Now he is, I'm sure, a notable fan (or she wouldn't have made a page for him). However, I've never heard of him before; and, from what she has written, there is no way that I can tell the nature of his noteworthiness to the Forever Knight community. It seems to me that we need a policy that, in articles on noteworthy fans, there should be some explicit mention of why the individual should be considered significant to the readers of this Wiki. However, being ignorant of Liltz, I can't amend his page to show this. -- Greer Watson 21:30, February 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Frank Liltz was a professional artist who augmented his professional spacescapes and bookcover illustrations with media-fan work. He and his wife (Barbara Fister-Liltz - also a professional artist and a media artist), were responsible for a lot of amazing Forever Knight artwork, running the gamut from full-scale oil painting to pen and ink. Barabra was the editor of "Knight Beat" and Frank often did the covers. When I do a proper job on fanzines, you'll see their IDs added. 22:12, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :::I've just taken this info and worked it into the article. Thanks. -- Greer Watson 23:50, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Moving category Would you please rename Category:Works by Amparo Bertam to "Works by Amparo Bertram"? I've already corrected the category name on the only story in it. :Done, though I deleted it instead and just created the new one for you. You'll see by the recent changes list as well that there were other pages I deleted too.--Kodia 10:45, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Don Fasig How do I get Don Fasig out of the Authors category? He was originally put in there, I guess, because we did not at that time have a category for Notable Fans. Then we did, and he was supposedly transferred there. But he is still turning up in the Authors category. The problem is that, when I try to edit his page, the only category that shows up as editable is Notable Fans. Yet he is definitely still in Authors as well. :A lot of times when this happens it's merely because the database doesn't update the category information at the same pace as the data on a page. If a page has a category removed from it, it may well still show up in the category for a day or two after. I'll take a look at it but two things you can try in the future: :#Try making an edit, even a small one, to the page in question and the category. Change a typo, add a word, that kind of thing. Then save the pages. This sometimes forces the category to update sooner. :#Wait for 24 hours. The refresh of the category page is less than 24 hours unless there are problems at the host site. I've not heard of problems at the moment, so this might work. :--Kodia 10:34, April 16, 2010 (UTC) Okay here's where the problem was: template page highlight The category was being automatically included as part of the template so we would catch everyone. By removing this, I may have created more problems, so keep a watch on this. It makes sense to keep this on the template for automatic category inclusion. I'm changing it so you can see the difference (again with the database delay caveat from above). But you may see adverse effects.--Kodia 10:39, April 16, 2010 (UTC) :Including the Author category in the template originally made sense: all the fans with pages in the wiki were authors, and any new pages featuring fans were simply being made for authors that Susan had done new story pages for. Then we invented the "notable fans" category—but, since most of our "notable fans" also write, they simply wound up in two categories. :However, as we get more and more into the Wiki (which has come far, but still has a lot needing to be done), this is changing. Don is unusual in having been added early—but that simply makes him the first of the "notables" who don't write. Some day, Susan may get around to doing all the fanzine editors, not all of whom were also authors. That may (or may not) add to the notables; but it will immediately jump the number of non-authors to a...well, a moderate number. (Also, of course, it will require the creation of a "Fanzine Editors" category, if we don't already have one.) In fact, Susan mentioned at one point a number of possible roles people could take—website owner was another—that would be independent of "author". :As for trouble: I do try to keep an eye on the Special Pages section of the Wiki; and the "without a category" types are something I always check on. There is certainly a tendency for new contributors not to add categories; but that's hardly restricted to the Authors category. Or did you mean some other sort of trouble? -- Greer Watson 21:07, April 16, 2010 (UTC)